|Publication number||US7461051 B2|
|Application number||US 10/534,627|
|Publication date||Dec 2, 2008|
|Filing date||Nov 10, 2003|
|Priority date||Nov 11, 2002|
|Also published as||CA2545230A1, CA2545230C, EP1565844A2, EP1565844A4, US8185515, US8577867, US20060149708, US20090089264, US20120278411, WO2004044705A2, WO2004044705A3, WO2004044705B1|
|Publication number||10534627, 534627, PCT/2003/36045, PCT/US/2003/036045, PCT/US/2003/36045, PCT/US/3/036045, PCT/US/3/36045, PCT/US2003/036045, PCT/US2003/36045, PCT/US2003036045, PCT/US200336045, PCT/US3/036045, PCT/US3/36045, PCT/US3036045, PCT/US336045, US 7461051 B2, US 7461051B2, US-B2-7461051, US7461051 B2, US7461051B2|
|Inventors||Steven David Lavine|
|Original Assignee||Transparensee Systems, Inc.|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (17), Non-Patent Citations (2), Referenced by (33), Classifications (17), Legal Events (2)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
This patent application claims benefit to International Application PCT/US2003/036045 filed on Nov. 10, 2003.
The present invention relates generally to data searching methods and systems and, more particularly concerns systems utilizing them.
The Internet, and particularly the Worldwide Web, has caused a virtual information explosion. An average user, making use of a conventional web browser, now has available to him a mass of information that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. This includes information available from professional and commercial sources, individuals, and message boards or forums, where users “congregate” to discuss every imaginable topic, and some that are not. With the wealth of information that is available, a new problem has arisen: How can that information be found?
This problem has been addressed by a plethora of “search engines”, which are software programs and information systems that are specifically designed to assist users in finding information. While existing search engines have been adequate, they are limited in their ability to uncover useful information when users are searching. The primary reason is that search engines tend to be language based, and a searcher is not always familiar with the common terminology in his field of search. Also, there may be useful information available which does not conform to the common terminology. It also takes substantial skill or experience to formulate queries that will produce meaningful results.
In accordance with the present invention, search results are achieved that are broader and more intelligent than basic keyword searching. This is achieved by imposing a structure on data being searched and utilizing the same structure for search queries. Relevant information is then uncovered by correlating the structure of the data being searched and the structure of the query. Items to be searched can include anything: messages, discussions, articles, polls, transcripts, or anything else that can be linked to or pulled from a database. Search results can be included that are less than 100% relevant, and not just 100% relevant. In the absence of, or in addition to, results that would be generated by a Boolean keyword-only-search, users can retrieve results of some relevance, for example as determined by a set of selectable filter criteria. Consequently, merchants can sell inventory which might otherwise be unseen and/or users can find information which might otherwise stay hidden in an overly strict Boolean search.
The method of the present invention is the glue that holds online speakers together as they seek to use the Worldwide Web to communicate as they do in life. It lets users speak without seeing the spam that fills most message boards; allows interesting conversations to take place without interruption; and gives users the anonymity to talk candidly without fear that their identities may be revealed.
Where message board sites or forums are concerned, the present invention transforms ordinary sites into profitable “para-sites.” Para-sites are sites that feed off the work of their own users. A para-site powered by the present invention collects interesting, relevant information by harnessing users to post and organize content, at no cost to the site-operator. Methods and systems embodying the present invention will hereafter be referred to by use of the assignee's trademark TRANSPARENSEE™. Users find sites stickier than other sites because of the high quality of information generated by the present invention. Site owners can restrict access to this information in different ways, allowing the most valuable information to be repackaged and resold to different markets at different price points.
As repositories of filtered information, TRANSPARENSEE™ sites attract users with specific interests. Users who speak intelligently about subjects they know soon find that their opinions on that subject carry more weight—and are heard by more people—than the opinions of others. The weight given to a particular user's thoughts on a subject is quantified as the user's “reputation” for knowing that subject.
TRANSPARENSEE™ sites allow users to develop and maintain complex, multi-variable reputations for a wide variety of different subjects. As users develop high reputations for knowing a particular subject, they gain privileges on the site as a result; as they gain privileges, their investment in the site grows. High-reputation users become reluctant to move conversations off-site because, by leaving, they'll lose the benefits they've gained as high-reputation users.
As a result, high-reputation users tend to remain on TRANSPARENSEE™ sites, and communities develop. These communities are deeply rooted in the site due to the investments their members have made by building reputations. For this reason, community members (and communities) cannot easily be lured away to non-TRANSPARENSEE™ sites.
A sticky community of experts sharing information in a highly accessible way attracts new users. New users generate content, develop reputations, and become community members, thus adding to the attractive pull of the community.
These network effects feed upon themselves, building small communities into large ones. The larger a community grows, the more information it has under discussion, the greater the number and expertise of its users, and the stronger a pull it exerts on new members. When a community grows large enough and vibrant enough, it becomes the only logical place for a new user to go in order to learn about or discuss a subject.
Because the present invention makes it easier for people to communicate, sites that use the present invention quickly attract users. As these users gain reputations they develop into communities that are hard to displace. Network effects cause these communities to grow quickly. Taken together, this means that the first company to use the reputation feature of the present invention in any particular market has a substantial first-mover advantage. The bulk of users in that market will end up on TRANSPARENSEE™ sites, and will form deep-rooted communities
TRANSPARENSEE™ site reputations are portable. Reputation values are stored at and administered from a central location, allowing users to carry their reputations with them from TRANSPARENSEE™ site to TRANSPARENSEE™ site. In other embodiments, reputation values are stored in a partly or wholly distributed fashion.
As the number of TRANSPARENSEE™ sites grows, the company's proprietary database of reputations also grows. When this database has reached a critical mass it will have tremendous value. Companies that choose to power their sites with the present invention will automatically become members of the TRANSPARENSEE™ Network, allowing them access to a large user base of individuals who may start using their pre-built reputations on the new site right away.
By allowing Web-site operators to inexpensively gather and distribute “insider speech,” the present invention fills a demand which, though strong, has not been met by any other product. The invention is equally unique in the way that it allows licensees to precisely target users based on detailed information without invading their individual privacy.
The present invention provides several immediate benefits. It promotes the disclosure of superior information, then ranks and organizes that information in a way that allows it to be easily packaged and sold to different audiences at different price points. It makes sites stickier while at the same time allowing licensees to provide advertisers with far more narrowly targeted advertisements than they otherwise could, substantially increasing advertising revenues. And it allows companies to lessen (or eliminate) the cost of hiring moderators to monitor online discussion.
The foregoing brief description, as well as further objects, features, and advantages of the present invention will be understood more completely from the following detailed description of a presently preferred, but nonetheless illustrative embodiment, with reference being had to the accompanying drawings, in which:
Also connected to the network I is a web server W which cooperates with a system S, in accordance with the present invention, to manage users' access to information in database CD. Within system S, a query and search module 20 in accordance with the present invention interfaces with users, permitting them to formulate requests for information from database CD. Module 20 creates, manages and maintains a structure database 10, which contains information describing the structural relationship between various pieces of information in database CD. Database 10 also contains information relating to the structural relationship between various portions of information in a query in a format comparable to the structural relationship of information in database CD.
In accordance with the present information, information in the database 10 is used to correlate the data structure of a query to the structure of database CD, in order to determine that information in database CD which needs to be provided to a user in response to a query. Server W then connects the user to server C, with instructions to server C regarding what information is to be provided to the user from database CD.
In some embodiments of the invention, system S also includes a user information module. This module is particularly useful in systems in which users access information in database CD which has been provided by other users. Module 30 could then, for example, include information about the reputation of various users with respect to the information which they have furnished. A user accessing information in database CD which has been provided by other users is then able to gauge the reliability of that information.
Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the functions of servers C and W could be combined in a single server. Alternatively, server W and system S could accommodate access to different, independent content databases CD relating to different subject matter. The user could thereby be offered access to information in a plurality of databases of different content through a single query generated via web server W.
The invention will best be understood through the detailed description of a number of preferred embodiments. In accordance with a first embodiment, a dating service is provided in which persons seeking potential mates (candidates) populate a database with information relating to themselves. Potential mates (searchers) can then access that database, providing various search criteria, in order to locate appropriate, potential mates. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that a similar model is applicable for numerous other services, such as, employment agency services.
In this embodiment, a searcher is also able to click on the button 44 in order to obtain an enhanced search.
In accordance with the present embodiment, a candidate also provides long answers to preset questions.
For example, should the user click “LubaO” in column 50, he would be transferred to a summary page for that user, illustrated by the screen shot of
As explained above, the present invention is not limited to text searching, but can find relevant information even when text does not match. This is accomplished by establishing the relevance of data based upon correlating a searcher's selected data with the data structure of database 10. In order to achieve this, database 10 must contain information representing the structural relationship of information in database CD, and that information must be updated as the content of database CD is changed.
In creating database 10, it is first necessary to define categories of information in database CD. For example, in the database represented by the screen of
Another structure for categories might be a “hierarchical” structure. This structure has the form of a tree. For example, the dating database could include a category for religion. That category could include a first level of subcategories, such as Christian, Jewish, and Moslem. Each of these religions would then be divided into further subcategories.
For example, the Christian category could be sub-divided into Catholic and Protestant, with each of those being further subdivided into different sects.
In accordance with the present invention, it has been found that better search results can be obtained by using a correlation procedure which is different for different types of data structures. In creating the structure database 10, each record (e.g., the information relating to a single candidate) would be parsed into categories, and the database 10 would retain information regarding the structure of each category. Thereafter, in determining the relevance of a particular record, the searcher's selections in each category would be correlated to the structure of that category in order to arrive at a value representing the relevance of that category. All of the categories in the record would then be processed, for example, by averaging, in order to arrive at a quantity representing the relevance of the record. In this manner, a relevance value is obtained for each record.
As an aid to understanding the relevance determination process, it is convenient to characterize categories in terms of a tree structure. For example, a character with a hierarchical structure could be represented as a multi-level tree as illustrated in
Where RA(S,D) is the relevance value of the category, Di and Si are the weighting categories assigned to the node i of the trees TD and TS, respectively (the nodes are simply processed pair-wise), and N is the total number of nodes.
Once a relevance value has been obtained for each category, these values can than be combined, for example by averaging, in order to arrive at a relevance value for the entire record. If such averaging is utilized, it is preferred to ignore all unselected categories in the evaluation process.
The process for generating a relevance value for a record is summarized in the flow chart of
At block 108 a test is made to determine whether all categories in the record have been processed and, if not, the next unprocessed category is selected at block 110 and control returns to block 104 to process the next category. If it is determined at block 108 that all categories have been processed, control transfers to block 112, where the relevance values of the categories are combined to produce the relevance value of the record. Preferably, this is done by averaging, as described above. At this point the process terminates, since the relevance value of the record has been determined.
Having a relevance value for each record, it is now possible to produce a report for the searcher, preferably in the order of relevance value.
Further aspects of the present invention will be described in the context of an alternate embodiment, which realizes an improved message board or user forum and also exemplifies the user reputation aspect of the invention.
In late 1998, a law firm “Firm 1” was losing associates faster than it could hire them. To stem the tide, “Firm 1” decided to give all associates a year-end “boom-year bonus” of $15,000.
At other firms, confusion reigned. Law firms had long made a point of paying associates the same amount from firm to firm. Should all firms now raise salaries to match “Firm 1”? Or could they get away with leaving things as they stood?
Firms responded inconsistently: some matched the “Firm 1” bonus, a few increased it, and others paid nothing. Associates who hadn't received bonuses were resentful, but there was little they could do.
The following year, an anonymous associate started a message board on Yahoo! called “Greedy Associates.” Associates using this board hoped that by talking about their firms online, they could put pressure on law firm partners to match “Firm 1” if boom-year bonuses were given a second time.
The logic was that an online message board would create accountability. Firms that hadn't matched “Firm 1” in 1998 thought they could get away with it because nobody would know. Law students considering working at those firms would have no way of learning whether, or how much, those firms had paid. By creating an online message board to talk about salaries and bonuses publicly, lawyers could create a repository for this kind of information and force their firms to match market leaders. Firms that chose not to would be taken to task, and would have a harder time recruiting new attorneys.
The Greedy Associates board was wildly popular, receiving up to 80,000 hits per day. As soon as a firm decided to give (or not to give) a bonus, news went out immediately. Associates sometimes learned that they had received bonuses on Greedy Associates before receiving an official memo from their firms. Greedy Associates became the new grapevine, and before long associates at most firms were checking the board several times a day.
The board made the front page of the New York Times when gossip on Greedy Associates led New York law firms to pay large bonuses in order to match California firms. In the past, the California raises might have been ignored. But with Greedy Associates publicizing the buzz among lawyers, law firms felt they were under a microscope. They could no longer ignore what people were saying about them online without putting their reputation at risk.
For the first time lawyers had been given a conduit to exchange information, and the information they exchanged was not limited to salaries: firm culture, clients, layoffs, and general gossip were all discussed. Before the Internet, this would have been impossible. Now it was easy.
Greedy Associates was popular in spite the incredibly poor quality of its underlying technology. “This board sucks,” was the message most commonly posted to Greedy Associates. And it did. The fact that Greedy Associates became so popular is a testament to the incredible demand for the service, not the quality of the site.
Three problems stood out:
Because of the divergent interests of its users, the original Greedy Associates board eventually fractured into almost fifty separate boards with names like Greedy NY Associates, Greedy SF Associates and Greedy NY Tax Associates. Every variation on the theme was played. And of course, because they were far smaller than the original Greedy Associates board, each subsidiary board was far less useful.
No Real Anonymity. One of the chief reasons for the popularity of Greedy Associates was the anonymity it offered. By speaking under a pseudonym, people felt they could reveal more than if their identity were known.
But as many people realized, the anonymity offered by Greedy Associates was limited. As most sites do, Greedy Associates secretly recorded information about its users and would disclose this information if served with a court order or subpoena. As a result, people who might otherwise have contributed to the conversation remained silent for fear of revealing their identity.
The present inventor originally set out to solve the problems observed on Greedy Associates. Efforts were focused on four discrete issues:
Solutions Have Wide Application. It soon became apparent that the problems observed on Greedy Associates are endemic to message boards generally, and that the solutions have widespread application to virtually any kind of online community.
As a result, instead of designing a better version of Greedy Associates, the present invention created a process and system to allow Web sites of any kind to implement the solutions discovered.
A. Dynamic Model.
i. The Problems With Static Models.
Online speech is stored using static methods. A post might be found on a specific “board,” an article in a “section” of a magazine, or a photograph as part of an “album.” These storage models separate content into individual spaces with fixed boundaries. People know that messages about Honda Accords, for example, are found on the Accord bulletin board in the Honda section, or that messages about Cisco Systems are found on the Cisco bulletin board in the Companies section. The path to a specific item is always the same, and follows a simple categorization scheme.
This is a bad system. To understand why it is bad, it is useful to understand how a static system is structured. Consider Vault.com, a premier message board for job seekers. A simplified structural model of Vault.com's message boards relating to “Law” appears in
In the system of
a. Bonuses at “Firm 1”: A Simple Example.
Suppose a user wants to post information about bonuses at “Firm 1”. Where should he post the message so that others will find it? There are three possibilities: The ““Firm 1”” board, the “Law” board or the “Salary Information” board.
Few users would take the time to post their message to all three relevant boards, and if they did it would simply create another problem. People who read all three boards would find themselves reading the same message over and over again. Thus, there is no one logical place for a user of the above system to post a message about bonuses at “Firm 1”, and no obvious solution to this problem.
The lack of a clear answer to the question of where a message on a specific subject should go creates difficulties for users. In the above example, users may read the “Firm 1” board without ever realizing that messages about “Firm 1” are also posted on both the “Law” board and the “Salary Information” board. For these users, the system is under-inclusive because it fails to show them all the messages that they want to see. But users who look for messages about “Firm 1” bonuses on the “Firm 1” board have the opposite problem. These users may be forced to read through numerous messages about “Firm 1” that don't deal with bonuses. For these users, the system is over-inclusive because it shows them many messages that they don't want to see.
b. Comparisons Within Groups: A Complex Example.
Problems with static systems are even greater for users who want to post messages about several different subjects within the same group. Suppose, for instance, that a user wants to compare the bonus given at “Firm 1” with the bonuses given at another specific firm (Firm 2”). Where should he post this message?
There are five boards where this message could reasonably be posted, but none of them are precisely right. It could be posted to the “Firm 1” board, the ““Firm 2”” board, the “Firm 3” board, the “Law” board or the “Salary Information” board. Whichever board the information is posted to, however, it's virtually certain that many users who would find it interesting will never see it. In some embodiments, it would not be posted to the “Firm 3” board (or other boards resulting from the filter selection of other firms that are neither “Firm 1” nor “Firm 2”). In other embodiments, it would be posted to one or more other boards resulting from the filter selection of other firms that are neither “Firm 1” nor “Firm 2”).
Even if the poster feels sure that he should post his message to one of the boards grouped under “Firms,” there's no clear answer as to which is best. Since no answer is clearly correct, any selection is sure to confuse users to some extent. The only board which would be clearly correct would be one dedicated specifically to comparisons of “Firm 1”, “Firm 2” and “Firm 3”. And no such board exists. In some embodiments, it would not be posted to the “Firm 3” board (or other boards resulting from the filter selection of other firms that are neither “Firm 1” nor “Firm 2”). In other embodiments, it would be posted to one or more other boards resulting from the filter selection of other firms that are neither “Firm 1” nor “Firm 2”).
ii. The Advantages of Dynamic Boards.
The present invention allows companies to create dynamic message boards.
a. Bonuses at “Firm 1”: Solving the Simple Example.
If a company like Vault.com were using the present invention, it might use filter categories such as “Firms,” “Industries,” and “Topics.” In some embodiments, the filter categories are “hardwired” into the system. In other embodiments, the filters are dynamically generated. A user interested in bonuses at “Firm 1” would select the following filters:
Although the user has not selected a filter for Industries, this filter will automatically be set to “Law” because “Firm 1” is a law firm. If the user had selected a banking firm, the Industries filter would automatically have been set to “Banking.” The database understands the relationships between filters and fills in unselected filter boxes with appropriate information. This understanding can be either “hardwired” into the system, or can be dynamically generated. Some examples of relationships generally are shown in
Now that the filters have been set, the user clicks “Apply.” The software sorts through the database and pulls out all messages, articles and other content related to both “Firm 1” and Salary Information (area A in
b. Comparisons Within Groups: Solving the Complex Example.
The advantages to this system become clearer if we reconsider the complex example, in which the user wanted to post a message comparing bonuses at “Firm 1”, “Firm 2” and “Firm 3”. In a dynamic system, the user would select the following filters:
As in the previous example, the Industries filter will automatically be set to “Law” because the firms selected are all law firms. Thus:
The Present invention will sort through the database and pull out all messages, articles and other content related to “Firm 1”, “Firm 2”, “Firm 3” or Salary Information. Some embodiments pull out content related to law firm information for law firms that are none of “Firm 1”, “Firm 2”, and “Firm 3”. Some embodiments pull out content related to the law industry. It will then order the data so that the most relevant information will be displayed first.
The first messages to be displayed will be those tagged with “Firm 1”, “Firm 2”, “Firm 3” and Salary Information (labeled “A” in
In one embodiment, a message relating to firm 1, firm 2, and salary is rated higher than a message relating to firm 1, firm 2, and firm 3. In another embodiment, a message relating to firm 1, firm 2, and salary is rated lower than a message relating to firm 1, firm 2, and firm 3.
The next messages to be displayed will be those labeled “B.” The Present invention will combine messages about “Firm 1” & “Firm 2”, “Firm 1” & “Firm 3” and “Firm 2” & “Firm 3” (all of which are also about Salary Information) and will sort them using a number of factors. In some embodiments, these factors can include a fuzzy math algorithm. In some embodiments, these factors can include an algorithm combining scalar values. After these messages have been displayed, the Present invention will display messages labeled “C,” which deal solely with “Firm 1”, “Firm 2” or “Firm 3” and the messages labeled “D,” which deal with Salary Information and Law Firms, but not with “Firm 1”, “Firm 2” or “Firm 3” specifically. In some embodiments, the above order can be changed; for example, including messages which do not deal with salary information.
Allowing users to display messages in this way solves the problem described in the last section. Users who wish to pull up information on “Firm 1”, “Firm 2”, “Firm 3” and Salary Information will see, first and foremost, the information most interesting to them. If, while looking at this “board,” they choose to post a message, their message will automatically be tagged with “Firm 1”, “Firm 2”, “Firm 3” and “Salary Information.” It will be among the messages likely to be displayed when another user performs a search using the same filters.
Unlike a search that uses only Boolean keyword searching, some embodiments of the invention allow searches to yield results which may not be 100% on point but still have relevance. For example, in an embodiment managing products, a customer can find products with varying degrees of relevance to the filters, and not just the 100% relevant products. If the merchant does not have one or more of the products sought by the customer, at least the merchant can present related products of interest to the customer.
In embodiments such as the discussed embodiment, a user can find information which may not be 100% on point but still have relevance.
In order to match data in a database with a given query, we take advantage of relationships (also known as “links”) that we establish between the data and the query. These relationships are often, but not always, segmented across several different categories (such as age, height, weight, location, price, etc.).
Every piece of content in a TRANSPARENSEE™ system is tagged with a set of weighted categories. Any query made to the system is also translated into a set of weighted categories. Our system assigns a numerical value to the degree of similarity (or difference) between these two sets of weighted categories through the use of our “Similarity Algorithm”.
The steps of the Similarity Algorithm are as follows:
1) Determine the weights of an element of content's tagged categories.
2) Determine the weights of the categories used in the selection (or query).
3) For each piece of tagged content:
The output of this calculation is a mapping of content object to relevance value.
The Similarity Algorithm can be customized in several ways:
Step 2) When a selection is passed into the algorithm, the weight on each category is either 1 or 0: 1 if the category has been explicitly selected and 0 if it has not. The Similarity Algorithm uses the relationships (links) between categories to assign weights to categories that are related to the explicitly selected categories. These relationships (links) could be sibling relationships, parent/child relationships, cross-linked relationships (links to categories under other root categories) or any other type of relationship. Weights assigned to categories as links are traversed based on the weight of the originating category in the link. The modifier used to assign weights to linked-to categories is adjustable.
Step 3a) If desired, certain root categories can be ignored.
Step 3aa) The method of comparison between the category weights in the selection and the category weights in the content is customizable. One method of comparison that can be used is a Cosine Coefficient algorithm.
Another method of comparison that can be used is the “Smithgate Algorithm”, which we developed ourselves. Any other algorithm can be used to determine the degree of similarity between two pieces of tagged content.
Step 3b) The aggregation algorithm can take into account weights or rankings of the root categories, since certain root categories may be more important than other root categories.
B. Rating Messages
The dynamic model described in Section A provides a powerful tool for organizing content. Used in conjunction with a sophisticated rating system, it is capable of far more.
A dynamic system automatically captures “metadata” each time a user posts a message. Examples of metadata are the filters set when a message is posted and ratings information. Because we know which filters are set when a message is posted, we know (in broad terms) what the message is about. As users rate messages, the system therefore develops a sophisticated profile on which subjects users are experts on.
This profile allows the system to do two things that can't be done on static systems: users can screen content so that people with poor reputations on this subject are ignored; and ratings given to specific messages can be weighted by the user's knowledge of the subject.
From a user's perspective things are simple: just point and click to give a message a rating between one and seven. Other rating systems use other scales. Some embodiments can have discrete and/or continuous rating systems. But the Present invention manages to do subtle and complex things with this simple rating.
i. Reputation System
Each user builds a reputation over time. This reputation is not a single number, but a profile made up of many numbers. Users build reputation ratings for each filter value of every message they've ever posted or rated on the system.
There are two ways of building a reputation: posting messages and rating messages. Posting a message gives the system substantial data to evaluate. Reputations gained through posting are therefore difficult to influence once established. In contrast, rating a message gives the system limited data to evaluate. Reputations gained by rating are therefore easier to influence. Thus, posting allows users to build “strong” reputations which can't easily be changed while rating messages allows users to build “weak” reputations which can be changed quite easily.
a. Building a Reputation by Posting: Strong Form.
Consider an example in which a poster posts a message comparing “Firm 1”, “Firm 2” and “Firm 3”. For the moment, let's contemplate only the “Firms” filter, which is set as follows:
In this case our rater, thinking the poster's message brilliant, gives it a 7. Our rater has already built a reputation, and his reputation for the selected firms is:
The situation now looks like this:
For each filter the rating of seven will be weighted by the rater's reputation and then averaged into the poster's reputation. Let's go through this example to see how this would work.
The rater has a reputation of seven for “Firm 1”. He is an expert on the subject. Since an expert on “Firm 1” gave a message involving “Firm 1” a top score, the poster's reputation on “Firm 1” will go up substantially. The rating of seven will be averaged into the poster's reputation on “Firm 1” and will be heavily weighted.
The rater has a reputation of four for “Firm 2”. This means that, while not entirely ignorant, he isn't an expert. Although he gave the message a seven, we shouldn't trust his opinion on “Firm 2” as much as we did his opinion on “Firm 1”. The rating of seven will be averaged into the poster's reputation for “Firm 2”, but will not be weighted as heavily as his rating of “Firm 1”. The poster's reputation for “Firm 2” will rise, but not as much as his reputation for “Firm 1”.
As for “Firm 3”, the rater has a reputation of one. He knows nothing about “Firm 3”, so we shouldn't trust his opinion at all. Even though the rater gave this message a seven, the rating will have no weight and will not affect the poster's reputation. In other embodiments, the weight has nonzero but low weight.
b. Building a Reputation by Rating: Weak Form.
Not all users are comfortable posting messages. For this reason, a weak form of building reputation that does not depend upon posting is also available.
All that is required of users to build this type of reputation is that they rate messages. Each time a user rates a message, the system performs a “cluster analysis” on the rating. In alternative embodiments, the reputation of the user is adjusted less frequently than every time the user posts a message.
This involves comparing the user's rating with ratings given that message by people with high reputations. If, over time, a user's ratings on a particular subject tend to correlate with the ratings of high reputation people on the same subject, we can assume that the user is trying to rate messages honestly and fairly and that he knows something about the subject. His reputation in this area will rise. But if the user's ratings tend to disagree with the ratings of people with high reputations, his reputation will fall.
A reputation built in this way is “weak” in the sense that it may rapidly be changed by the strong form of reputation-building. For example, a user may build up a reputation for ““Firm 1”” over time using the weak method. Eventually this user may decide to post a message about “Firm 1”. If the message receives a good rating from high-reputation users, the user's reputation for knowing about “Firm 1” will be reinforced. But if the message receives a bad rating, the user's reputation for knowing about “Firm 1” will quickly be eroded. One or two bad “strong” ratings of posted messages are enough to destroy a “weak” reputation built up over a period of months. In other embodiments, more than two such messages are enough to destroy the reputation.
ii. Message Ratings.
Just as users have reputations, messages have ratings. Message ratings are determined by the scores users give them, weighted by the relevant reputation of the raters.
Let us go back to our example of the previous section. The situation was as follows:
The rater has given this message a seven. But the rater does not have a perfect reputation for all the relevant filters. He knows quite a bit about “Firm 1”, but only a little about “Firm 2” and nothing at all about “Firm 3”.
The system aggregates the rater's reputation in these fields using a mathematical formula. In this case, the rater's aggregate reputation for “Firm 1”, “Firm 2” and “Firm 3” is four. The system will average the rating of seven into the message's rating, giving it a weighting of four.
If the user had had a perfect reputation for knowing about “Firm 1”, “Firm 2” and “Firm 3”, the weighting would have been a seven. In that case the user's rating of seven would have been averaged into the message rating with a weighting of seven. The message rating would count twice as much as it did in the prior example. In some embodiments, the weight of a message has a linear relationship with the rating of the message. In other embodiments, the weight of a message has a nonlinear relationship with the rating of the message.
In some embodiments, a message has one rating. In other embodiments, a message has multiple ratings, for example different ratings for different filters or sets of filters.
C. Threshold Filtering.
The rating system works hand in hand with a system to filter rated messages. The filtering system allows users to select a rating threshold and view only those messages with ratings above that threshold. Other messages are not seen.
i. Method of Threshold Filtering.
To set a threshold, users click the “threshold” button. A palette appears, containing a scatterplot as in
By selecting this point the user has chosen to view messages of high message quality without much regard to the reputation of the poster.
A different user might have selected the point on the scatterplot as in
This user has chosen to view messages posted by users with high reputations without much regard to message quality. Many users will, of course, select a point like in
This user wants to see only those messages of high-quality which were written by people with high reputations. By selecting this threshold, this user will likely see only the very best messages that have been posted.
ii. Results of Threshold Filtering.
In combination with the reputation system, this method of threshold filtering allows people to build communities of self-validating experts. These experts are encouraged to post good content and to rate content they see accurately.
By posting good content or rating content accurately, users build high reputations. People with high reputations become community leaders because their voices are heard by others. People without high reputations are excluded from the community because their voices cannot be heard.
In the diagram of
Other embodiments use an interface other than a scatterplot, such as one or more selectors of reputation and/or message rating.
Users whose quality of speech places them above the average threshold will be heard. In this way, the Present invention formalizes a process that takes place informally all the time: people who speak intelligently and often become recognized as authorities.
But the system does something more. Users whose quality of speech places them below the average threshold will, on average, not be heard. Their speech is never seen by the average user.
People who say foolish things or post spam will find it difficult to post messages which fall above the Average Threshold. They will quickly establish a poor reputation. Thus, in addition to providing incentives to post good content, the system provides disincentives for posting bad information. People are encouraged to say good things and discouraged from speaking if they have nothing good to say.
D. Implicit Reputation.
Filters often have clear relationships between them. ““Firm 1”,” for instance, is a law firm. Thus, as described in Section III(A)(ii), when ““Firm 1”” is selected (for “Firms”) “Law” is automatically selected (for “Industries”).
This means that as people build reputations in specific categories, they automatically build reputations in other related categories. The relationships between related categories can be “hardwired” and/or dynamically determined. A person who builds a reputation for “Firm 1” simultaneously builds a reputation for Law. See
If, after speaking well about Salaries at “Firm 1” a person decides to speak about Salaries at Law Firms generally, they will already have established a reputation for both “Law” and “Salaries.” Their advice on Law Firms will be trusted because, by demonstrating that they know about “Firm 1”, they've shown that they know about Law Firms generally.
If they say bad things about Law Firms, their reputation for Law Firms will decline but their reputation for “Firm 1” will be unaffected. In other embodiments, their reputation is affected poorly. In other embodiments, good messages raise their reputation for “Firm 1”. After all, they've already established that they know about “Firm 1”. The fact that they don't know about other firms doesn't diminish that.
E. Annotation System
The use of filters as described permits a unique annotation system. This system lets users annotate content with their comments, which are appropriately tagged and filed by the Present invention. In this way proprietary content becomes the seed from which thousands of related messages sprout, filling the database with interesting, pre-sorted messages.
i. Creating Annotations.
Proprietary content is first tagged, sentence by sentence, with appropriate filters by the site operator. In other embodiments, tagging occurs more frequently, for example word by word, or group of words. In other embodiments, tagging occurs less frequently, such as in multi-sentence blocks or paragraphs.
As shown in the paragraph of
The filter values come into play when the user decides to annotate a sentence. Suppose that the user decides to comment on the third sentence in the above paragraph. They select the sentence to annotate, then enter their comments, as in
Since we know that the sentence being annotated is about John Doe, a partner at “Firm 1”, we can feel reasonably sure that the annotation is about the same subject. The system therefore automatically tags the annotation with the same filters as the original sentence and files the annotation in the database using those filters. In other embodiments, filters can be added, changed, and/or subtracted, automatically or by selection.
ii. Viewing Annotations.
There are two ways to view annotations: annotation format and message format.
a. Annotation Format.
When viewing annotated text, users can select a sentence to view its annotations. Thus, a user reading a description of “Firm 1” would simply select any sentence for more detail.
Like messages, annotations are rated and filtered. Annotations that fall above a user's threshold are displayed. Annotations below the threshold are not seen.
Thus by selecting any sentence in a description, a user can immediately read the best comments on that sentence. Comments by users with reputations for knowing the subject matter are more likely to be seen than, comments by less knowledgeable users, and good messages are more likely to be seen than bad.
Since annotations are filed in the message database, they can also be pulled up as messages.
The annotation in diagram seven, for instance, is tagged with the following filters:
This annotation will therefore come up as a message whenever a user sets their filters in a way that substantially overlaps with these filters. Thus, if a user sets their filters to ““Firm 1”” and “Hours,” this message is likely to be displayed; It would also be displayed during a search for ““Firm 1”” and “Partners” or “Law Firms” and “Partners.” And it's almost certain to be displayed in a search for “John Doe.”
For both annotations and other messages, the order in which they are displayed can be influenced by relevance and/or rating.
F. Since annotations can also be viewed as messages, persuading users to annotate content will seed the system with initial messages and get conversations started. As long as the site starts with content users want to respond to, discussions will be started and placed into the system with enough filters attached so that appropriate messages appear during any related search. Because each message will have many filters attached, users will perceive the boards on the system to be full even though only a few messages may have been posted.
Anonymity provides a powerful incentive to speak about sensitive subjects online. Indeed, the mere perception of anonymity felt by online speakers has contributed to an enormous outpouring of gossip on the Web. But as Time Magazine reports:
Although a lack of anonymity can create a chilling effect on speech, giving users anonymity causes other problems. Anonymous speakers are not accountable for their speech and feel free to post spam and low-quality messages because speech can't be traced back to them.
The Present invention's rating and filtering systems solve these problems by creating accountability for anonymous speech. Users who speak poorly or spam the system will receive low ratings. Their messages will not be seen and they will discover that their speech has become invisible to others. On the other hand, users with good reputations will be able to speak anonymously with the knowledge that their speech will be heard, although their names remain unknown.
The Present invention protects people's identity in two ways: its four levels of anonymity and its use of onion routing.
i. Four Levels of Anonymity.
The Present invention provides four different levels of anonymity. Users can change their anonymity level before posting messages in order to ensure that sensitive messages receive as much protection as they deserve.
a. Level One: Use of Pseudonyms.
First level anonymity allows users to post messages using a pseudonym. Unlike other message boards, the software does not ask for information about the user that could link the message to their true identity. No e-mail address, credit card information or other information that could connect a user to the site is recorded. Information about a user's Internet service provider or IP address is not logged. All that the system requests from a user—and all it knows about a user—is their username and password.
This means that if a site using the Present invention is subpoenaed to turn over the identity of someone who posted a particular message, it can't. Even if site operators cooperate to the best of their ability, the limited information they have will be useless. Asked who posted a particular message, the most they will be able to say is, “that message was posted by a person calling themselves ‘Daffodil.’ It was read by other users because Daffodil has a good reputation for knowing about the subject.”
b. Level Two: Anonymous Linked.
Second level anonymity allows users to post messages as “Anonymous.” Although other users cannot tell who posted an anonymous message, the Present invention keeps track and continues to link a user's reputation to the messages they post. Anonymous messages may therefore benefit from a poster's high reputation, and ratings given to anonymously posted messages affect the poster's reputation.
Messages posted using level-two anonymity are sometimes called “anonymous linked” messages because although the identity of the poster is hidden to other users, the Present invention keeps track of links between messages and their authors. The software “knows” who wrote which message, although other users don't.
This makes the “private reply” possible. Suppose Daffodil decides to post a message critical of ‘Mr. Big,’ a partner at “Firm 1”. Daffodil has posted messages about “Firm 1” before, and has a high reputation for knowing about the firm. She realizes, however, that readers will be able to determine her identity if they read this message in the context of other messages she's written.
For this reason Daffodil decides to post her message anonymously. Her high reputation for knowing about “Firm 1” is linked to the message, so many people will read it. And if they give it a high rating, her reputation for “Firm 1” will go up even further.
Suppose Mr. Big reads the message. He disagrees with Daffodil, but doesn't want to speak out publicly. He can click a button on the message marked “private reply” and send a private reply to Daffodil's internal mailbox on the system. He can send this reply to Daffodil even though he doesn't know that “Daffodil” is the person he's writing to. And if Daffodil replies to him, she can choose to do so anonymously. If this correspondence continues a private, detailed e-mail conversation can take place between these two without ever risking Daffodil's identity. And if she eventually becomes convinced that she wronged Mr. Big in her original message, she may decide to retract it.
What if Daffodil decides not to retract her message? Mr. Big may become upset enough to serve the site with a subpoena demanding Daffodil's true identity.
The most the site could give Mr. Big would be Daffodil's username. But even this might be enough to unmask Daffodil. By putting her message together with other messages posted by Daffodil in the past, Mr. Big may be able to determine Daffodil's true identity.
c. Level Three: Anonymous Unlinked.
For this reason, the Present invention offers a third level of anonymity. Level three messages are also referred to as “anonymous unlinked.” Like level two messages, they are posted under the username “Anonymous.” But unlike level two, the system does not keep track of links between messages and their authors. When a message is posted, the system immediately stamps the message with a user's relevant reputation scores; it then severs the link between the user and the message and “forgets” the poster's identity. After a level three message has been posted, even the site operator is unable to determine who the author was.
Because the message has been stamped with the reputation values of the poster, it can be filtered like any other. Messages posted by high reputation users will be seen and those posted by low reputation users will not. But users feel secure posting level three messages because they know that although their messages can benefit from their reputation scores, their identities are completely protected—even from the site operators themselves.
d. Level Four: Complete Anonymity.
For each of levels one, two and three, users are required to log on with a username and password before posting messages. Although their identities are protected, some users may feel uncomfortable providing even this limited information just prior to posting particularly sensitive messages. For this reason level four anonymity allows users to post messages without even logging in. Users are not required to give any information at all. Since they have not given any information to the system, and since the Present invention does not record IP addresses, information about ISPs or place cookies on a user's machine, users can be assured of complete anonymity when using level four anonymity.
A disadvantage to level four anonymity is that since the system doesn't know who the user is, they are unable to take advantage of their reputation. As a result, few people are likely to see messages posted using level four anonymity. This problem is not insurmountable, however. A user who posts a particularly interesting message using level four anonymity can simply log in at a later date, find their message, and give it a high rating (or, if they're to scared to risk themselves this way, they can tell a friend about the message they “read” and give them enough information to easily locate it). One good rating will not be sufficient to ensure that the message is widely read. But it will give the message enough of a boost that a few more people will see it. If the message is truly interesting and deserves to be read, it's rating will quickly soar and it will be injected into the mainstream of conversation.
Employers sometimes keep track of the sites their employees have been to. As a result, people are often afraid to access particular sites from work.
Since filters are used to organize TRANSPARENSEE™ sites, it is important to ensure that sites have complete and current filter-sets. But it is difficult and expensive for sites to keep their filters up to date in real-time. This would require sites about law firms to know the name of every new law firm, and sites about restaurants to know the name of every new restaurant, as soon as they come into existence.
An easier way is to give users the ability to add new filters. If the user of a job site doesn't see their firm listed, or the user of a restaurant site doesn't see a new bistro, they can add it to the filter set. Allowing users who know a subject best to find and repair weak spots in the system is the best and most cost-effective way to keep filters current.
The potential disadvantage is that some users may insert incorrect filters into the filter-set. This can be prevented with TRANSPARENSEE™'s reputation system.
Suppose a user notices that their law firm, “Firm 4” is not listed on a TRANSPARENSEE™ job site. The user would request that Firm 4 be added to the filter set and would fill out a form containing basic information about the firm.
Since the user claims that Firm 4 is a New York law firm, it stands to reason that users with high reputations for “New York” and “Law Firm” will be in a position to know whether Firm 4 is real or not. The next time such users log into the system, they will see a poll in the corner of their screen asking:
Which of these is a New York law firm?
Users with high reputations for “New York” and “law firms” might be expected to answer this question correctly. But some may not. A malicious minority of users may check the wrong box.
These users can be caught through cluster analysis. A simple algorithm allows us to determine what answers the majority of users gave and highlights those users whose answers differed substantially. Their entries can be disregarded and their reputations diminished. If their reputations go down enough, they will no longer be asked to answer polls of this type. In this way the filter-set can grow in response to the needs of users.
It can also shrink. If users fail to use certain filters over a period of time, those filters are removed from the filter-set.
We term the ability to grow and shrink in response to user demand an “organic” element. The present invention makes a system highly organic. The filter-set, and thus the board itself, responds to the demands of high-reputation users. By responding to users in real-time and shaping itself to their needs, the system collects and verifies information more rapidly and accurately than even a large staff could.
In addition to messages, the Present invention supports polls, articles, transcripts, faxes, Word files, photos, audio and video clips and any other type of data. These types of content can be posted to the system, indexed, searched for, filtered and rated, just like messages.
Posting an interesting fax, photo or Word file would result in a substantial boost to a user's reputation. Indeed, certain types of content are more likely to result in a reputation boost than others. If a user posts an internal memo about bonuses at “Firm 1” to the ““Firm 1”” and “Salary Information” board, his reputation in those areas will skyrocket. It will be clear to everyone using the board that this person works at “Firm 1” and is doing his best to feed good information to others. This effect creates a strong incentive for people to post information proving that they are “insiders.”
Polls can only be posted to the system by high-reputation users. At the discretion of the poster, they may be seen only by other high-reputation users.
Thus, a user with a high reputation for ““Firm 1”” could create a poll asking other “Firm 1” people questions about the firm. After all, who better to know the best questions to ask than someone who works there? People with high reputations for “Firm 1” might see the following poll the next time they login:
Daffodil asks: “What's the worst
thing about Firm 1's new offices?
not enough closet space
horrible shag carpeting
When enough people have answered this poll, Daffodil will have the option of allowing others to see poll results.
Allowing only users with high reputations to post and answer polls gives people a substantial incentive to try to obtain a high reputation. Giving them the discretion to send such polls only to other high reputation users provides a way for high reputation users to communicate only among themselves, thus enhancing the prestige—and reward—of having a high reputation.
Users who achieve a high reputation may also publish articles. An article is more complex than a message, and can contain images (such as graphs) and other complex attachments. More importantly, an article is posted in a prominent and fixed position on a page, making users more likely to read articles than messages.
As with polls, allowing only users with high reputations to write articles enhances people's desire to obtain a high reputation. Since people raise their reputation by posting good content to the site, this encourages the posting of interesting content.
The Present invention has a “chat” option, but with a difference. Any user party to a chat can choose to push the “record” button at any time. If a chat is being recorded, a red light appears in a corner of the chat window. Recorded chats can be posted to the system just like messages.
Chats may be restricted to only high reputation users. Other users won't even be aware that a chat is taking place. Furthermore, when a chat is posted, it may take on the average reputation values of the users party to the chat. This encourages users to invite only high reputation people to chat with them if they want their transcripts to be widely seen.
Pending consideration of copyright-related concerns, the software can easily be modified to accept faxes. If this function is implemented, users will be able to fax documents to TRANSPARENSEE™ sites from any location. After the fax goes through, the user's fax machine will print a slip containing a confirmation number.
The next time the user goes to the site they can receive the fax that they sent by clicking the “Receive Fax” button and entering the confirmation number. The fax will then appear on the user's screen and can be posted to the system. It is not necessary to login to receive a fax, and faxes can be posted to the system using any level of anonymity.
Again, pending consideration of copyright-related concerns, the software can be modified to accept Word files, photos, and video clips. Just as posting a fax can demonstrate one's insider status and raise one's reputation, so can posting an interesting file, photo, or clip.
One of the greatest advantages of the Present invention lies in the filter selection mechanism. It feeds information to users as they make choices, allowing them to extract information from the database on areas they may know little about.
Consider a law student trying to decide which firms to interview with. The student knows nothing about law firms, but knows that he would like to work at a firm with offices in New York, Palo Alto and London.
To obtain information, the student would set his filters as follows:
Industries=Law Locations=New York Palo Alto London
If he now selects the “Firms” filter, the system will show him a list of law firms with offices in New York, Palo Alto and London. The list might look like this:
Morrison & Foerster
Shearman & Sterling
White & Case
These are all law firms with offices in New York, Palo Alto and London. On a conventional bulletin-board system the user would have had to determine for himself which firms have offices in all three locations. This could take hours, but only after doing this research would he know which boards are of interest to him. On a TRANSPARENSEE™ system, the relevant firms are pre-selected.
J. Wireless Clients Supported
The Present invention has been built to accommodate multiple front-ends. Thus, as wireless PDAs (such as Palm Pilots and Blackberries) become more commonly available, a front-end can be provided to make TRANSPARENSEE™ sites accessible from such devices.
The present invention will be particularly useful for PDA users, since the small screen and low bandwidth of PDAs places a premium on the ability to retrieve high quality information quickly. Discussion boards, in their current form, will be virtually inaccessible from PDAs due to the amount of time it takes to find worthwhile information on them, even when using a high bandwidth client. By eliminating low quality information from such boards, the Present invention will make PDAs a viable device for the exchange of information between large numbers of online users.
Although preferred embodiments of the invention have been disclosed for illustrative purposes, those skilled in the art will appreciate that many additions, modifications and substitutions are possible without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention as defined by the accompanying claims.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US5642502 *||Dec 6, 1994||Jun 24, 1997||University Of Central Florida||Method and system for searching for relevant documents from a text database collection, using statistical ranking, relevancy feedback and small pieces of text|
|US5953718 *||Nov 12, 1997||Sep 14, 1999||Oracle Corporation||Research mode for a knowledge base search and retrieval system|
|US6098066 *||Jun 13, 1997||Aug 1, 2000||Sun Microsystems, Inc.||Method and apparatus for searching for documents stored within a document directory hierarchy|
|US6185550||Jun 13, 1997||Feb 6, 2001||Sun Microsystems, Inc.||Method and apparatus for classifying documents within a class hierarchy creating term vector, term file and relevance ranking|
|US6275811 *||May 6, 1998||Aug 14, 2001||Michael R. Ginn||System and method for facilitating interactive electronic communication through acknowledgment of positive contributive|
|US6691108 *||Dec 12, 2000||Feb 10, 2004||Nec Corporation||Focused search engine and method|
|US7181438 *||May 30, 2000||Feb 20, 2007||Alberti Anemometer, Llc||Database access system|
|US7296009 *||Jun 30, 2000||Nov 13, 2007||Telstra Corporation Limited||Search system|
|US20010007987 *||Nov 30, 2000||Jul 12, 2001||Nobuyuki Igata||Structured-document search apparatus and method, recording medium storing structured-document searching program, and method of creating indexes for searching structured documents|
|US20010046677 *||Apr 4, 2001||Nov 29, 2001||City Of Hope, A Not-For-Profit Corporation Of The State Of California||Method for detecting mutations in nucleic acids|
|US20010049677 *||Mar 30, 2001||Dec 6, 2001||Iqbal Talib||Methods and systems for enabling efficient retrieval of documents from a document archive|
|US20020055932 *||Aug 6, 2001||May 9, 2002||Wheeler David B.||System and method for comparing heterogeneous data sources|
|US20020111847 *||Dec 8, 2000||Aug 15, 2002||Word Of Net, Inc.||System and method for calculating a marketing appearance frequency measurement|
|US20020147711 *||Mar 28, 2002||Oct 10, 2002||Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba||Apparatus, method, and program for retrieving structured documents|
|WO2001022287A1||Sep 19, 2000||Mar 29, 2001||Infoglide Corp||System and method for performing similarity searching|
|WO2001046870A1||Dec 7, 2000||Jun 28, 2001||Amazon Com Inc||System and method for locating and displaying web-based product offerings|
|WO2001061601A1 *||Feb 14, 2001||Aug 23, 2001||Ebay Inc||Related users in an electronic environment|
|1||*||"Grammatical Tree Matching"; Pekka Kilpelainen and Heikki Mannila; University of Helsinki; Finland; 1992.|
|2||*||"Proximal Nodes: A Model to Query Document Databases by Content and Structure"; Gonzalo Navarro and Ricardo Baeza-Yates; University of Chile; ACM; Oct. 1997.|
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US7827052 *||Sep 30, 2005||Nov 2, 2010||Google Inc.||Systems and methods for reputation management|
|US7899832 *||Oct 12, 2007||Mar 1, 2011||Business Objects Software Ltd.||Apparatus and method for assessing relevant categories and measures for use in data analyses|
|US7904473 *||Mar 8, 2011||Aol Inc.||Community-based parental controls|
|US7912875||Oct 31, 2006||Mar 22, 2011||Business Objects Software Ltd.||Apparatus and method for filtering data using nested panels|
|US7966340||Sep 8, 2010||Jun 21, 2011||Aster Data Systems, Inc.||System and method of massively parallel data processing|
|US8010480||Sep 30, 2005||Aug 30, 2011||Google Inc.||Selecting high quality text within identified reviews for display in review snippets|
|US8051074 *||Aug 6, 2008||Nov 1, 2011||Nhn Corporation||Method of controlling display of comments|
|US8055639 *||Jan 2, 2007||Nov 8, 2011||Realnetworks, Inc.||System and method for offering complementary products / services|
|US8185515||Dec 1, 2008||May 22, 2012||Transparensee Systems, Inc.||Method and system for managing message boards|
|US8195695||Dec 31, 2008||Jun 5, 2012||Business Objects Software Ltd.||Apparatus and method for categorical filtering of data|
|US8219560||Jan 26, 2011||Jul 10, 2012||Business Objects Software Ltd.||Assessing relevant categories and measures for use in data analyses|
|US8249915 *||Aug 4, 2005||Aug 21, 2012||Iams Anthony L||Computer-implemented method and system for collaborative product evaluation|
|US8296245 *||Oct 3, 2008||Oct 23, 2012||Kount Inc.||Method and system for creation and validation of anonymous digital credentials|
|US8429098||Apr 30, 2010||Apr 23, 2013||Global Eprocure||Classification confidence estimating tool|
|US8438469||Sep 30, 2005||May 7, 2013||Google Inc.||Embedded review and rating information|
|US8452746 *||Apr 30, 2010||May 28, 2013||Google Inc.||Detecting spam search results for context processed search queries|
|US8554601||Aug 22, 2003||Oct 8, 2013||Amazon Technologies, Inc.||Managing content based on reputation|
|US8577867||Apr 18, 2012||Nov 5, 2013||Transparensee Systems, Inc.||Method and system for expanding a website|
|US8626771 *||Jun 29, 2007||Jan 7, 2014||Microsoft Corporation||Container reputation|
|US8756210||Oct 5, 2011||Jun 17, 2014||Google Inc.||Aggregating context data for programmable search engines|
|US8800029||Oct 4, 2010||Aug 5, 2014||International Business Machines Corporation||Gathering, storing and using reputation information|
|US8838729||Jun 29, 2007||Sep 16, 2014||Microsoft Corporation||Gathering statistics based on container exchange|
|US8868439||May 15, 2009||Oct 21, 2014||Microsoft Corporation||Content activity feedback into a reputation system|
|US8903841||May 21, 2010||Dec 2, 2014||Teradata Us, Inc.||System and method of massively parallel data processing|
|US8931048||Aug 24, 2010||Jan 6, 2015||International Business Machines Corporation||Data system forensics system and method|
|US9031937||Sep 14, 2012||May 12, 2015||Google Inc.||Programmable search engine|
|US20060242309 *||Apr 3, 2006||Oct 26, 2006||Damick Jeffrey J||Community-based parental controls|
|US20070033092 *||Aug 4, 2005||Feb 8, 2007||Iams Anthony L||Computer-implemented method and system for collaborative product evaluation|
|US20070078670 *||Sep 30, 2005||Apr 5, 2007||Dave Kushal B||Selecting high quality reviews for display|
|US20070078671 *||Sep 30, 2005||Apr 5, 2007||Dave Kushal B||Selecting high quality text within identified reviews for display in review snippets|
|US20070078699 *||Sep 30, 2005||Apr 5, 2007||Scott James K||Systems and methods for reputation management|
|US20090178125 *||Oct 3, 2008||Jul 9, 2009||Credme Inc.||Method and System for Creation and Validation of Anonymous Digital Credentials|
|US20100223250 *||Apr 30, 2010||Sep 2, 2010||Google Inc.||Detecting spam related and biased contexts for programmable search engines|
|U.S. Classification||1/1, 707/E17.058, 707/E17.111, 707/999.003, 707/999.004, 707/999.005, 707/999.001|
|International Classification||G06F17/30, G06F7/00|
|Cooperative Classification||Y10S707/99933, Y10S707/99931, Y10S707/99934, Y10S707/99935, G06F17/30477, G06F17/30873|
|European Classification||G06F17/30W3, G06F17/30S4P4|
|May 8, 2007||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: TRANSPARENSEE SYSTEMS, INC., NEW YORK
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:LAVINE, STEVEN;REEL/FRAME:019282/0205
Effective date: 20051123
|Feb 15, 2012||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 4